Note: The Taki post is up. This week it is a discourse on the proposed replacement for originalism in conservative jurisprudence. The Sunday Thoughts podcast is up behind the green door for subscribers.
Over the last few years, it has become increasingly popular to examine what went wrong with the conservative movement. This was mostly the result of Trump winning the Republican nomination, despite universal opposition from conservatives. At that point it was no longer possible to ignore the collapse of conservatism. Prior to 2016, the movement was the gatekeeper for the party. Trump and the Dirt People kicked open the gates and found nothing worth keeping inside.
One result of this is the sprouting of proposed alternatives like Yoram Hazony’s national conservatism, common good conservativism and integralism. Libertarians, of course, maintain the fantasy that this is their time. There are certainly others working to produce something to fill the void on the Right. All of these proposed alternative start with a basic claim that conservatism failed. None of these new conservatisms bother to think too hard about why Buckley conservatism failed.
This is what makes this post from Paul Gottfried important. He was around when many of the critical turns of the conservative movement were made, so he has a perspective on it that few have today. Most of the main players from the growth phase of Buckley conservatism are gone now. With them went the personal disputes that ended up shaping what became mainstream conservatism in the 1980’s. The one thing the Left has right is that politics is always personal.
Gottfried tries to do three things in the post. One is to bring attention to the recent scholarship on Harry Jaffa, who was a central figure in the debates about the shape and direction of conservatism. Then there is the fact that there was a time when debate was possible within conservatism. Others have noted that there was an interregnum in which sensitive topics like race and immigration could be debated. That window closed in the 1990’s, eventually taking the public square with it.
The main point of Gottfried’s post is to place the blame for this and the collapse of conservatism at the feet of the neoconservatives. Before the neoconservatives gained power, it was possible for Harry Jaffa and Mel Bradford to live together. Jaffa was largely responsible for the Lincoln fetish among conservatives. He claimed the Civil War and the Reconstruction amendments were a perfecting of the original Constitution by reincorporating the sentiments of the Declaration.
Bradford was a Southerner and a Southern conservative. This not only placed him at odds with Jaffa’s reimagining of the Founding and Civil War, but it put him on the losing side of the internal struggles within conservatism. He was on the Russel Kirk wing of the Right, which was purged by Buckley in the 1980’s. In fact, Bradford was one of the first to be hurled into the void by conservatives. Paul Gottfried blames this urge to purge squarely on the neoconservatives.
There is truth to it, but the desire to excommunicate rivals exists in all movements, so it is hardly unique to the neocons. The question is how were they able to change the rules in order to disqualify the arguments of their opponents? After all, no one was purged for being factually incorrect. The dispute between the paleos and neos was over moral questions and that is where Jaffa comes back into the room. It is Jaffa’s work that gave the neocons the chance to rig morality to their advantage.
The central claim of Harry Jaffa is that the Constitution was an imperfect effort to encode the sentiments of the Declaration into the political framework of the new nation created out of the break from England. The contradictions within the constitutional order eventually led to the Civil War. This allowed for some necessary corrections to advance the nation down the road toward the sentiments in the Declaration. Lincoln becomes the Moses of this new nation forged in liberty.
Of course, this requires a reading of early American history that steps outside of the actual facts and written accounts of the Founders. It also requires a new version of the events leading up to the Civil War. That was all made easy because it proved a path forward for conservatives to embrace egalitarianism. They could finally claim that their opponents on the Left were the real racist because Lincoln was a Republican, freed the slaves and said stuff about all men being equal.
That is not being fair to Jaffa, who deserves a much more through debunking than time permits, but this was his contribution to conservatism. The cult of Lincoln he created for the Right cut them loose from the old conservativism, rooted in the natural order, and provided them with a new moral foundation. The New Right would be about equality and liberty. The New Left, in contrast, would be about equality and justice, thus tying the two together through egalitarianism.
Here is a post on the same site as the Gottfried post, in which the editors reject the new normal of American politics. Everything is good until this. “In reality, race is not the ultimate fact of human identity or the central problem of American life. Different ethnic populations have different general tendencies, but not different natural rights. Everyone is capable of learning to live well in this country, but only if we confidently endorse both our geographical and cultural boundaries.”
The linked post in that quote is worth reading, as it rips the mask from the “new conservatism” and exposes it as the old conservatism. The great fork in the road, the shadow that hangs over human history, is biology. The story of man is not one tale with many chapters, but many stories of many people, all of whom have their own unique understanding of themselves and how they should live. The genuine man of the Right understands this and accepts it. Equality, in short, is inhuman.
When you pick up one end of a stick, you pick up the other. This is the problem that destroyed 20th century conservatism. They were offered a Faustian bargain from the likes of Harry Jaffa. They accepted the egalitarianism of the radicals as their foundation stone and in exchange they were rewarded with riches. Conservatism was once again Northern Conservatism and followed the same path that another Southerner observed about them in the 19th century.
If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!
Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.
The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is a tea, but it has a mild flavor. It’s autumn here in Lagos, so it is my daily beverage now.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.
The Buckley conservatives failed because they were as useful to ordinary Americans as the Pope’s d*ck. While the Left was busy taking over every institution and trashing every value that keeps a society going, these idiots put on their bow ties and went on cruises to discuss endlessly, “Wither conservatism?” They ended up conserving nothing and handed over the keys to the kingdom to the Bolsheviks we see today. Reminder No: 419315677: Intellectuals are idiots.
The problem with Harry Jaffa and his emotional descendants is that “liberty” and “equality” are antonyms.
Thanks for your kind words
It’s entirely possible conservatism has always succeeded, but we never know it because there is always another boatload of liberal immigrants ready to reset the scale.
O/T – “Bird Flu Epidemic Plunges US Egg Production to Record Low”
We have industrialized egg production using multi-level mega-coops in which hens are housed in little boxes and auto-fed genetically modified grains/supplements, and even the egg retrieval system is hyper-mechanized. Works like a charm until the hens lose their natural robustness and fall victim diseases they formerly survived. This is known as colony collapse and its coming to an office cubicle farm near you sooner than you think.
In these parts, eggs have gone from 60-70 cents a dozen, to approximately $2.50. My wife was able to buy several dozen from a co-worker with fowl, at $1.50 ea. dozen, but the girl announced today that she was bumping the price up to $2 going forward.
If you have a flock, now is a good time to invest in an incubator.
The human condition reduced to one single question:
– How far are you willing to go to ensure the next meal?
The – often tacit – answer to this question is the history of your life.
Your post was not of the usual interminable length. You okay?
I’m starting to think that instant communications is the bane of the human race. Let “equality” equal “the appearance of equality.” This is the definition the Left settled on in the Sixties, and it’s just barely possible to convince yourself that it’s happening — that populations really are equal — if you have more or less real-time data coming in. A huge volume of instantaneous information allows you to pick and choose between variables. If you have “measurements” of five thousand different things, you can focus on the five that make your case — say, “Educational attainment is reaching parity… Read more »
Instant comms also keep you and society in a permanent state of hysteria and “something must be done” ism.
Z Man writes, “there was an interregnum in which sensitive topics like race and immigration could be debated. That window closed in the 1990’s, eventually taking the public square with it.”
Does anyone have any theories about why the interregnum began, and more importantly, why it ended? I was a young adult at the time but not paying attention.
A clue is that at that around that time Clinton modified the ADL’s slogan, “Diversity is our strength,” to “Diversity is our greatest strength.”
I have thought it was the end of the Cold War, and thus no external threat, plus the specific need to rescue nearly dying cities such as New York. Remember Dinkins allowed a pogrom amongst black voters in NYC and predictably those targeted had their fellows in finance and other powerful institutions making moves to check that. Often the historical path is one of path-dependency created by accident.
No USSR meant honest discussion could not generate outside attack, and Dinkins was seen as a menace by influential people at the time.
Hey they’re grooming castrating and raping kids, starving babies but at least we don’t have Bad Optics.
Who needs Feds when you have the real life Right wing?
The problem here is that we are looking at these Yesterday Men with the hindsight of 20/20 vision. I am not up to speed on the language of cutting edge dissidents like our esteemed blog host – but one of the best terms I ever heard for them was “paleocon”. Those guys thought the way they did, and made the mistakes they did because they were literally old dinosaurs watching their world get hit by an asteroid. In the 60s (maybe even 50s) – women’s work in the home became obsolete with all the electrical appliances and the women had… Read more »
“The Constitution should therefore be interpreted as a vehicle to promote what is in the best interest of society as a whole, rather than a defense of individual rights.”
Sometimes individual rights are in the best interest of society as a whole. The key is not to dive down the rat hole of libertarianism.
In fact, the Constitution was and is a contract between the various States that superseded the Articles of Confederation…So arguing that it supports anything else is merely a convenient lie that serves the people in power, who have breached that contract continually..Almost all of the changes in government since the Civil War clearly violate that contract, proving that the opponents of ratification like Patrick Henry were absolutely right..
” The most well-known proponents of this new school of conservatism are R.R. Reno, Sohrab Ahmari, Patrick Deneen, Adrian Vermeule, and Josh Hammer.”
I should probably fell bad that I’ve never heard of any of these people. But I don’t.
I’d hate to see the obscure proponents.
I’m proud to say that I’ve never heard of any of them.
Hey, Vizzini, didn’t you know that the Left live in fear of these intellectual conservatives? /s
A group of people come into a country or organization, corrupt it to serve their own purposes, and then abandon the dead husk when it is no longer useful to them. This is only prevented if the hosts notice them soon enough and evict them before the corruption is terminal.
As bad as the NeoCons are, and they are loathsome, the problem of conservatism predate the Neocons and really anything remotely connected to modern Conservatism. The quote in the linked article over at countercurrents is from the 19th century. It shows the inherent problems of conservatism as a political movement. It is a failed reactionism which never actually stops the progressive drift. It’s like a boxer who is afraid to punch his counter-punching opponent. No matter how many punches he doges or blocks, sooner or later he is going to get knocked out. Even if he doesn’t and successfully blocks… Read more »
“Then, after 10 years or so of all these positive MAP characters being portrayed in this way, the politics of it will come to the fore. Conservatives will wonder how they lost yet another seemingly obviously easy win.”
Conservatives will be defending pedophilia in five years.
You really think it will take that long?
I thought the rhetorical device of fifty percent was neat, but you are right, of course. National Review will publish THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR PEDOPHILIA no later than the Spring of ’24 and will soon thereafter announce it has hired a staffer who is a Minor Attracted Person.
One very simple thing to do is eschew any and all usage of MAP and refer to these ghouls as “kiddie diddlers”. If that’s too euphemistic then go with “child raper”.
Every single you hear or see the term MAP, the person must be quickly and publicly corrected. “You mean a child raper”? The humiliation you engender today might just spare a future child from a horrible act of abuse.
Yep. Can already see the “Bill Buckley would condone pedophilia” articles.
Jaffaism is a weird ideology. Kind of a we wiz romanz vibe to it. But that style of conservatism is in that category of not quite Paleocon and not quite neocon. Sort of some generalized hard right ideology. Think of someone like Paul weyrich or Stanton Evans as an example
(madness is freedom : freedom is madness)
The body can’t escape the cause-effect chain; it is doubtful that the mind can. But if it can, is the non-causal space the land of the non-sequitur?
(who wants to be free?
who wants to be insane?)
Can this spam be stopped? Was amusing the first couple times, now boring. Certainly we can keep goring it, but what if such pops up wit greater frequency? Could be disruptive.
In other words, the Jewish Harry Jaffa redefined American history and American conservatism to suit the Ellis Island diaspora Jews, and to justify the post-Hitler Global American Empire as somehow “conservative.” Prior to the Civil War, “conservatism” meant conserving the values of the white nationalist/ rural Protestant Virginia planter class, which were in turn derived from the Rights of Englishmen of 1688. And those rights included the right to secede from a polity that no longer served their interests, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration. Jews hardly existed in America, and the few powerful ones who did were inconveniently on… Read more »
This comment should be inscribed in bronze and bolted to the side of the Statue of Liberty.
One of the central questions of conservatism is: Can a truly conservative agenda have an international goal? Personally, I don’t think so. Internationalism killed Conservatism. The Neocons were able to leverage the only (arguably) real triumph of conservatism – the Cold War finale – during the last century into an unholy dominance of the domestic narrative. All the power of a State apparatus big enough to win the Cold War was then repurposed to international mischief, instead of being dismantled to the benefit of white taxpayers. The US political equilibrium became the Left’s dominance of domestic policy – “you guys… Read more »
I see it a bit differently. During the Cold War, conservatives were utterly fixated upon defeating international communism, with the USSR as its prime bete noir. While this was occurring, they effectively surrendered domestic issues, via distracted neglect, to the Left. And the Left took advantage to the hilt. By the time the Cold War was won, America had been converted into a Leftist, anti-white polity. And the post-Cold War “right,” neoconservative in toto, not only had no objection to the Left’s anti-white agenda, they extended it to the realm of geopolitics. That’s where we’re at today.
Agreed. I’m not wasting a nanosecond to search for something William F. Buckley said, but to paraphrase, he argued peace had to be made with the Left to defeat the USSR. Of course, there was very little difference between the domestic and foreign monsters and this tactic allowed the totalitarian enemy inside the house. I would go as far as to say the Progressive/Neocon beast is directly more dangerous.
Related, I just read where Michael Chertoff of the Patriot Act has been nominated to head the Censorship Board, which is kind of perfect.
“I just read where Michael Chertoff of the Patriot Act has been nominated to head the Censorship Board, which is kind of perfect.”
I guess they really needed a man to do the job, since the “feminist” they chose first was a complete disaster. Normally, there would be an outcry from the left to install a non-binary trans woman (whatever that is) POC muslim carpet munching pedophile. But, when they need ruthlessness to do the job successfully, they go with the son of a Talmudic scholar and an Israeli stewardess.
During the time of the Cold War, the left sensed an opportunity to steal a march domestically, and they steadily advanced toward their aims. They argued that segregation was an exploitable weakness, and undoubtedly with support from the US communists and the jevvs [but I repeat myself…], as well as reflexive responses from the old Republican party – the Party of Lincoln, retch – (Eisenhower sending in the troops in Arkansas to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, a revocation of the old bargain struck that ended Reconstruction that permitted some state powers over their own populations/social policies), and the cooperation… Read more »
The big danger of switching to nationalism from internationalism is that the internationalists immediately go on the attack. It’s similar to what was happening in Europe during the enlightenment: nationalist republics would sprout up, and the imperial monarchies that were the big boys always saw that as a threat that needed to be squished asap and would invade.
Even if they don’t crush you outright, the other problem is ending up like the Azov people. They got lured with nationalist ideology into fighting and dying as a cat’s paw for the internationalists.
“This allowed for some necessary corrections to advance the nation down the road toward the sentiments in the Declaration.” Yeah, and those necessary corrections involved killing more than 600,000 White men. But, not to worry. The North loved the South so much they had to kill them to save them. And even though the Northerners that died for “the Union” didn’t do it because they cared about the slaves, the historical narrative is that the War of Northern Aggression was “good” because it “ended” slavery. It didn’t, though. It just made everyone slaves. If you ever find it, there is… Read more »
As Bill the Butcher said in “Gangs of New York”, the merchant upper classes just imported Irish slaves to out-compete Southern black slaves. They didn’t even have to feed the Irish, while poor old Scarlett O’Hara has to find something to keep her slaves alive. The Yankees’ sense of moral superiority is one of the more sickening aspects of the Civil War. It continues today with utter contempt for laboring classes and distant Chinese slave labor.
The Civil War is a freakish example of a war where it was the winner, not the loser, who ended up viciously and permanently invaded by barbarians as a consequence of winning the war. Cheap labor flooded the North and made “Mayflower Americans” a despised minority in their own homeland (WASP’s) if those Civil War veterans lived long enough. It happened in a single lifetime.
And it was Northern cities that burned and declined the most as a result of civil rights. There’s something in the groundwater up North, too much lithium or something.
After 73 years of experience with the Constitution of the founders, the Confederacy broke off and wrote an improved Constitution, addressing the problems with the original that led to the civil war, among other faults. Read it, ignoring only references to slavery. (Although they may have been more practical there as well)
Conservatives no longer know who they are beyond some high-minded, losing, principles, and that’s why they’ve conserved nothing. Liberals are all about winning the fight by any means necessary, which is why they have no principles.
It’s not rocket science. You’d think one or the other would be able to figure it out.
Well. Look, the reason these guys want to pretend we can focus on the how questions rather than the who questions. And the reason is that the *who* question can only be answered as White men with children. And that answer, kids, can only mean violence. The opposition is not exactly wrong when they view Trump and whoever as White supremacists because, working backward, the policies these guys represent ultimately benefit Whites. Not all of the policies, of course: but no pointless wars, bringing manufacturing back, and much of the rest of it benefit exactly White men with children. Therefore,… Read more »
Great post. The more I read about Lincoln, the more I despise him and all those who have been raging war against the South for over 150 years. I grew up in suburbia but my family and I frequently visited relatives in Appalachia and the Deep South. Once, after we’d returned from a visit with them, my siblings and I were playing and mocking their strong accents. Our parents swiftly and strictly reprimanded us. They told us how proud we should be of that heritage. Our dad shared a bit of the war against the south. We were too young… Read more »
“Later, it became impossible not to notice that the characters on tv with southern accents were always backward, simple minded morons.”
And today, you see that the noble characters on TV and movies are all diverse cultural enrichers. Look at advertising. They contain a great majority of POC’s, especially blacks and interracial couples and individuals. TPTB still use these tactics to define the “truth” about reality. What is the truth now? Whites are useless and need to be destroyed while we need to promote more diversity, since they are the future. The “good” future. The right side of history.
I’ve been watching the Stanley Cup Playoffs ( I know, I shouldn’t be watching sportsball…)
I’m amused at the commercials showing blacks camping and driving pickup trucks.
And the beginning of the Calgary-Edmonton game had one of those “ we are on stolen land” announcements made by some phony in a headdress. So if I steal my neighbor’s car, it’s ok as long as I continually apologize?
And How many blacks are watching the Cup playoffs?
The United States’ longest Forever War is with the South. It has entered a genocidal stage, with the groundwork laid by pop culture, as you point out. Of course, the entire exercise is to obscure a certain tribe’s disproportionate involvement in the Atlantic slave trade and the Confederacy itself.
Mindful that delicacy isn’t my strong suit, the free-trade economics and demographics of the antebellum South are alive and well, whereas the industrialization, trade protectionism, and effective whitetopia the North represented are dead and buried. That isn’t to pin the present issues on the South, because politics weren’t clear-cut then, less so now. But as I’ve said before, I think the war brought out the worst in both, bringing America back into the empire after a generation or two. Jefferson railed against the king for the slave trade in his draft of the Declaration. He understood the consequences of colonial… Read more »
No matter how sympathetc one may be to the Dabney piece, it’s more Lost Cause-ism. Even though today’s new arrivals may eventually bite the hand that feeds them and turn on their Dem benefactors with a vengeance, the “story” of America, going forward, may be polydemo with various intermingled sub groups having each their own blended biostory. Do today’s Brits who might, if possible, trace their ancestry exclusively to the fourth century Saxon invasion oppose Brits descended from the Normans? Heck, Ivanhoe was proudly loyal to the Angevins or the Platagents whichever. Even the lovely Jewess, Rebecca, caught a break.… Read more »
Been reading up on medieval life. As in how medieval society was actually lived. It’s a mishmash of contracts related to land use. Really that last sentence describes feudalism and manorialism perfectly. The courts where the contracts were disputed by was ran in the name of the local lord by a seneschal. Literally, the owner of the village judged, via his own contracts, how they lived. Contracts, on contracts, on contracts.
It all leads me to believe that libertarianism is some white boy blood memory.
Let’s go deeper. Environment drives differentiation in all living things. What persists in any given environment is what “works” over the long run. This is why the planet is inhabited by so many different peoples. Each is well suited to their particular local environment. For most of our evolutionary history, walking was the means of transportation and local environments were dominated by the natural world, largely unfettered by man-made changes. Then we became sentient, acquired language, grew big brains, and started to change the world around us. All of this kicked into hyperdrive with the advent of civilization and people… Read more »
maybe. but as things break down the environment reverts, and the survivors start re-adapting. also some people create an artificial “challenge” via sports, training, hard labor jobs, etc. some will survive.
Agreed. I often advocate getting out of the city and establishing yourself in a more rural environment where physical labor (or exercise) is at least part of your daily routine. Also, a quieter setting allows for clearer thinking and narrower focus. Living in a big city often results in information overload and chaotic decision-making.
The “Emerging Multiethnic Right” article is hilarious and pure Boomer bait. So many subtle lies, but the best part is when the author offers up a remedy to the Left’s efforts to keep non-whites on the reservation via social pressure: “Americans of every color should have the freedom to think for themselves without threat of social harm. But there’s something you can do right now, exactly where you are, to crack the social pressure: be a friend.” Be a friend! What a fag. This guy gets all hot and bothered about how Trump did better with non-whites and latches onto… Read more »
Ha. I looked too quickly at the stats/graphics for non-whites and Trump. It’s actually worse. Trump went from ~21% to ~26% of the non-white vote.
The writer is such a tool. He spouts off about Trump increasing his share of the non-white vote by 5% without mentioning how unimaginably low it started.
It’s stunning what liars these people are. I hate them more than I hate the Dems.
They never mention the cost of that slight uptick in votes. GWB got a substantial (thought still less than 50%) of the Latino vote by promising that anyone who spoke Spanish could move to America while Trump got a slight boost among blacks by freeing a bunch of black felons and promising them a bazzillion gazzilllion bucks if re-elected. I mean, even if it “worked” in cracked the Blue Block it still would have been awful.
Actually, the story could have been even more exaggerated. He increased his nonwhite vote share by 5 percentage point. The increase in share was almost 25% (5/21).
As Greg Hood said in the amren podcast the other day, there are only two choices to the anti-white multiracial future we face: to submit, or to resist. To submit means accepting the wrong explanations for racial inequality, where the handouts, hiring preferences, browbeating lectures about racism, calls for reparations, etc never end, because equality is impossible. If all people of all races were given an equal amount of money at one time, within an hour the amount would become unequal again, and within a couple of weeks the calls for equality would resurface. It can never end because pesky… Read more »
Yeah, but that’s a feature not a bug for the Left. The perpetual revolution. They always get to stay in power because the problem is never solved.
The real issue is that the fewer whites in a society, the less well it will run. (Even if you replace the whites with Asians, it will still run less well because Asians will game the system way more than whites.) Sooner or later, the society reaches a level of incompetence that brings in a new order.
The U.S. will likely look a lot like a South American country at some point.
Citizen: Zman provides two separate links to articles from “The American Mind” other than Gottfried’s. I initially read the first but not the second, upon which you vent your well-deserved ire. Just want to point out that, congruent with Noah Peterson’s blatant lies about ethnic and racial differences, the magazine’s editors in their post (the first hyperlink) inadvertently provide a factual counterpoint. Prior to declaring “race is not the ultimate fact of human identity” they warn “And foreign civilizations, hostile or indifferent to our way of life and emboldened by our reigning ideology of decadence and delusion, are seeking more… Read more »
And they have successfully accomplished their goal by making “racism” the world’s gravest sin, and coincidentally, only whites can commit a “racism”. MLB is now investigating an “issue” where a Yankees player called a black opposing player “Jackie”. This is considered a “racism”. The black player took full advantage of the made up victimhood and ran with it all the way, despite the fact that he started a fight on the field. (Blacks resorting to violence… control your shock). Many people know the truth about biology, but they will sacrifice themselves on the altar of virtue before they accept it.… Read more »
I believe that to be embarrassed one must have some reasonable self esteem levels. Blacks are repeated shown to have (unearned) self esteem “off the charts”.
Tired Citizen, just to add to your mention of the “Jackie” incident, what happened was White Sox shortstop Tim Anderson (black guy) referred to himself as “today’s Jackie Robinson,” and that he feels like he needs to change the game the way Robinson did. This was in an interview in 2019. That’s why Josh Donaldson (white guy) said “what’s up Jackie” to Anderson, which is what started the bench-clearing incident. I know this is tiresome, but I’ll say it. What would happen if Donaldson referred to himself as “the next Mickey Mantle” in an interview and Anderson later said, “what’s… Read more »
“Be a friend..what a fag”. perfect.
I am somewhat of a mixed mind as to younger generation Whites. They currently bear the brunt of AA. But in pain there is learning. They see the unqualified being elevated above them. Nothing could bring them to Race Realism faster.
Younger whites are an interesting group. They’re been inundated by equality and systemic racism from birth. It’s water to a fish. Just there. The ones who do wake up get pretty pissed, pretty fast. The ones who don’t live in an interesting fantasy land. Most of them do know a few blacks or Asians, but the blacks are generally top 10% blacks, so this reinforces the fantasy. But like I said somewhere else, these whites never think that the anti-white stuff is about them personally. It’s just against the system or bad whites. In general, regardless of their politics, these… Read more »
>”But like I said somewhere else, these whites never think that the anti-white stuff is about them personally. It’s just against the system or bad whites.”
Exactly right.
I believe, but have no data, that the “talented tenth” were played out long ago. There is a dearth of talented minorities to fill all the required AA slots along side of Whites. What I hear from folks in “normal” jobs—not captured institutions like the University—is that these AA folk are being noticed, and not for the better. I agree that in many cases, the situation is as you’ve stated, Citizen, but there simply are not enough talented minorities to fill the void in industry. When I hear stories—and I do—of how such under-performers are “worked around” such that the… Read more »
I’m in tech in corporate America for a large company. My company is as woke as all the others, but it’s still run by mostly whites at the top (the CEO is a white liberal). There has been a LOT of turnover though, and many whites have been removed or “retired”. We have your typical fat black lady diversity officer made up job that pays her exorbitant money to ensure white guys don’t succeed. I get lost of emails about company culture, making sure my mental health is good, etc. etc. all the while ensuring that everyone is included in… Read more »
It’s easy to forget that the talented tenth are a tenth of 13% of the population and talent in that tenth (or 1.3%) starts at about the average IQ for the rest of the population (actually IQ of 103 given an 85 mean and 14 Standard Deviation. To be noticeably smartish you’d have to be around 125 IQ or .25% (that’s one quarter of 1%) of the black population. Or about 102,000 individuals ( Don’t you love the extra precision of that 2,000?) Those guys have clearly got it made but are not going to make a difference in a… Read more »
Every single malady that afflicts the Western World is the result of White on White crime. Black on black crime is inconsequential compared to the intentional destruction of a 2000 year old civilization and the diminution of an entire race of people by White leadership, the kind currently meeting in Davos. I know that ( ( whites)) are constantly plotting and scheming but they would have gotten nowhere without the full cooperation of White Western elites.
Well there’s “macro” level s**t, and then there’s “micro” level s**t. For our purposes, I don’t think the two should be conflated, but I agree with you.
Trump won in ‘16 by appealing to blue collar whites, taking on immigration, running illuminati pyramids in campaign ads, etc. By ‘20 he’d done an about face and gone full boomercon, and lost. Today he’s just milking people. Save America— gee Don, why do we have to do that? Guess we really did get tired of winning. It blows my mind that the arrangement depends on Republicans never going on offense, and how upsetting even a guy who was mostly tough talk was to it. I may never figure out how something so weak can be so formidable, except for… Read more »
“ Boomers were promised that if they went along with the equality thing, non-whites would eventually start acting like whites in dark face. They were tricked, but they can’t bring themselves to believe it because the consequences and guilt would be so horrible.” I’m a boomer, born 1954, and I think you’re describing me. I believed in the promise of the Great Society and the Civil Rights movement- I believed that America just had to remove the legal and extralegal shackles of its underclass, and that would create a new, better society. I believed that group differences were merely skin… Read more »
Oh, and this group also believed that Putin was the worst person in the history of the world, and the Ukraine is a country of St. Francis of Assisi impersonators. They know this because the New York Times told then so.
One of the reasons the modern conservative lacks principal is because so much money that flows into the GOP comes from the merchant class. It is an unfortunate fact of post-industrial life. The salesman sees the world as a potential customer. Thomas Jefferson said it best…
“Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.“
Götterdamn-it-all: I’ve always liked that Jefferson quote. The endless flow of money has corrupted far more than putative conservatives. And everyone must now avoid that essential truth – that he who is primarily or solely focused on profit – has no real home. He always distrusts everyone else as equally ethically bereft as himself, because Money First. Tradition, affection, local ties, all must be swept away because Money First.
And almost every civilization throughout recorded history has acknowledged and warned about which group maintains Money First as its prime directive.
My once quiet burg has been discovered by blue state refugees and we are now in the midst of a building boom and the local politicians and real estate agents/developers are in state of ecstasy about the “progress” ( I.e.. money). Meanwhile, the character of our community is changing as a replacement population moves in and the local young people have to leave because they can no longer afford to live in a town where their family has been for generations.
Buckley Conservatism is just as failed of an ideology as Marxist-Leninism, but even its predecessors and other flavors fell flat and accomplished nothing. How can an ideology based solely on preservation rather than action and accomplishments do otherwise? Globalism’s triumph over nationalism, no matter how short the run, shows how impotent conservatism was and is; even the nation-state could not be conserved.
Dabney nailed this one more than a century ago. Seeking merely to preserve rather than to advance inevitably leads to decay and ceding ground. Infant suffrage indeed.
From a practical perspective how much of the canceling culture comes out of the increased amount of feminized men and usual suspects involved in the debates?
No disrespect to Gotftfried intended.
Masculinity that emphasizes honor can live with disagreements with other men.
Feminization or feminine minded men involved in debates means one side must die or be expelled.
The left-right, Republican-democrat divide in America has always been contrived because both mainstream parties exist within a liberal-enlightenment framework. They are only left or right relative to each other. Stepping back and viewing them in a larger historic or ideological frame and they are both obviously middle to far left. And consistently moving further left together. Operationally, the American left determines what is to be achieved and the right works out how to do so. Mid 20th century the left decided that radical equality was the goal for society. And instead of opposing that goal, the right argued how best… Read more »
“Republicans are the Tax collector of the welfare state.”
Wasn’t it Reagan who expressed this sentiment?
> Different ethnic populations have different general tendencies, but not different natural rights. Everyone is capable of learning to live well in this country, but only if we confidently endorse both our geographical and cultural boundaries There’s that idea again of rights as something one has for simply existing with no regard for the community one is a part of. This has been the moral basis for American imperialism and white disenfranchisement for the 20th and 21th century. Notice too how incoherent it is. If a population has different general tendencies, then of course they need their own form of… Read more »
“Different ethnic populations have different general tendencies, but not different natural rights. Everyone is capable of learning to live well in this country, but only if we confidently endorse both our geographical and cultural boundaries” Define ‘live well’…. And what exactly does he mean by endorsing our cultural boundaries? Is that enforcing segregation? Accepting that blacks and whites cannot coexist in our society? That all men are, in fact, NOT created equal? Forcing violent, low impulse control creatures to live just like creatures which do not have those traits is a recipe for disaster. We have the proof. 60 years… Read more »
I often feel like your father. I continue to bring up how things were “when I was young”. I was born in NYC. But if I don’t say something, who will? Certainly not the progressives—and certainly not the current school system.
The newest generation grows up in an environment and assumes that’s the way things are, and always were. Therefore they never understand what’s been taken from them and what they need to strive for if they desire such to return.
It seems as though egalitarianism is the root of many, if not all of our societal problems. If conservatism (or whatever replaces it) can’t cross that hurdle confidently and stand up to the inevitable screeching and name calling from the left, I don’t see much hope. The left has completely established the moral framework of our time and putting that genie back in the bottle and/or casting it aside will take great intestinal fortitude that seems to be sorely lacking in our day and age.
There’s no way to do that. It is impossible. The only way is likely a conflict, where one side literally vanquishes the other.
Imagine such a conflict takes place.
Imagine what punishments our esteemed cloud people would put in place for people on our side who manage to survive but didn’t win. They’re hoping for that now, to get the dissidents out of the way.
Egalitarianism or “equity”? I can live with giving anyone a chance to succeed, but never assuming blame for when they don’t.
Compsci: I can live with giving any White a chance to succeed. No one else ought to be provided with the opportunities, institutions, employment, etc. which represent the labor and ideas and largesse of countless Whites.
That may be the end result desired. I’m just looking at the current state of society, which is mixed. I’m willing to compete in the job market on a level playing field. That of course realizes such does not exist as said many times by many (White—and Black/Brown) people.
Which comes first, your vision or mine I can not say. Baby steps…. But, I must note, your statement is *identical* to La Raza’s statement of goals and principle. You have a bit of Mexican in you? 😉
The double helix has reached its platinum jubilee or thereabouts. Casting James Watson into the void didn’t have great consequences, as he’s ninety-something years old and he made his main scientific contributions a long time ago. But a lot of angry young white guys who are skilled are being lured East where they don’t have to worry about being castrated by some HR Shaniqua, and are actually praised and well-paid for their work. And assuming the Chinese continue their work (without killing the world’s population in the meantime) proving a link between genes and intelligence and heritable group differences, the… Read more »
Science is—and should be—amoral. The more it is politicized and brought into the sphere of human morality, the less useful (and correct) it will be. We have other institutions to go to for moral guidance. The West lost site of this, the CCP not so much. Yes, they control their scientists as they do everyone. But I’m not sure to the extent that their science is falsified in service to the State. On the other hand, they seem to have much less interest in scientists—if the term I not absurd—outside STEM.
A recent Jeopardy answer was about some woman nobody has ever heard of having discovered the double helix before Watson and Crick. I call BS of the Hidden Figures variety. Every game will have at least one such woke moment.
No, that’s true.
She was experimenting with newly developed microscopic photography, specializing in minerals and crystalline formation.
She took pictures of living tissue, and discovered the helix. She was soon to publish her findings, but still a few weeks away.
Watson got word of her pursuit. He visited her office and saw the photos of the helix on her desk. He called a press conference the next day, saying, “I had a dream about snakes.”
Yes the correction you talk about involved the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and destruction of large swaths of the south. Sounds like all (corrections) by the left.
Also, I know it is imprudent to go there and shows me to be the midwit I am, but does all of this destruction by intellectuals and movements have to involve “them” all the time?
The Conservatism, Inc. crowd still gets furious when people point out they have conserved nothing. They act like people are dunces for even bringing it up.
I would assume the lines about race biology are included at the behest of some large Claremont donors. At least a few of the people on staff there know better, but these people are still committed to staying respectable.
Has anyone seen this pernicious piece of propaganda? It’s just laughably wrong, so far wrong that it’s obvious propaganda. I’ve had people bring it up to me and they laugh about it but I can see what this is. One, to claim pit bulls have no nature and two, to claim we are all the great human family with no difference between populations. I’ve got to say the left is better at propaganda that anyone. They never relent.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/04/dog-breed-personality-characteristics/629707/
The dissident pitbull narrative is one of the most effective dog-whistles (heh) of the online right. Everyone with a brain can see that pitbulls are innately more violent than other breeds, and the efforts of normies to explain otherwise because of the clear connotations is just hilarious.
During my working days, I would constantly observe Joggers and Pit Bulls together.
They are both violent and dangerous creatures, to be avoided at all costs. I guess it’s birds of a feather or some such thing.
Yeah, there’s a reason that blacks get pit bulls and Dodge Chargers.
When will The Atlantic come out with a piece saying that the difference in car brands is just a cultural construct?
A good argument against “pit bulls have no nature it’s completely how they are raised” is pointing out that no one ever says that about a golden retriever
Chet: The very notion that breed exists, and that it is the result of biology, is Wrongthink. Remember, it’s all merely culture which flows from environment. Train a Chihuahua as a border Collie and it’ll do just fine. Guarantee you the Kennel Club already has this written down somewhere.
Pit bulls are an example of IKAGO. People have stories of attacks and I’m certain friendly Pit’s. I as “attacked” a few weeks ago by a large female Pit at the home of a friend’s daughter. By “attacked” I mean this damn dog would not leave me alone. She was licking me and nuzzling me for attention constantly. She was very needy. 😉 But we don’t make decisions on anecdotal evidence, but rather on the average or “typical” observed behavior. This is by we have Black neighborhoods and White. We knew this truth for 100 years and then it seems—at… Read more »
A veterinarian said, in 20 years there was only one pit who tried to bite him because she was hurt and scared-
And in 20 years, there was only one German Shepard that DIDN’T try to bite him.
The Vet sounds like an asshole.
Dogs can read a person better than humans.
Good Shepard!
It’s not forgotten, just denied. It can’t be forgotten because it has to constantly be denied.
My goodness. How has Sailer not seen that one?
Sailer missed that one, but not this one: https://www.unz.com/isteve/does-breed-not-exist/?highlight=dog+breeds
What a coincidence that the Washington Post piece that Sailer links to was published at the exact same time as the Atlantic piece (linked by Whitney above). Both by different authors.
Yep, total coincidence. The possibility that these people belong to the same secret email list where the come up with these ideas is a right-wing conspiracy theory.
Why is The Atlantic defending pit bulls other than to make your second point? Pit bull owners are the kind of people the average Atlantic reader would want to send to a concentration camp.
Pitbulls are weird. Favorite of hood rats and liberal white women
In my town—majority Hispanic—Pit’s and Chu’s are the most common dogs at the County animal shelter (no kill). Pit’s are a necessity (IMO). Go to the poorer sections of town and you will see homes that look something like an Afrikaner farmers home. A home that is completely surrounded by a short chain link fence in which the Pit, or Pit’s, are let loose at night to patrol the property. Open the gate and death/dismemberment is your reward. I don’t particularly blame them.
Hahaha!
When your parents announced they were moving from NYC to SoCal, the neighbors sqwacked “you’re going to Cali-FOR-nya!?” like they were on a wagon train out West.
Hell’s Kitchen. To think they called a few blocks in the old Bronx “Hell’s Kitchen.”
So, whaddya call it when you mix rednecks with pitbulls?
An all-white neighborhood.
A Stonetoss classic: https://ifunny.co/picture/look-so-different-because-of-their-breed-stonetoss-on-way-FCRufFc57
It is as if the author of that piece did not even bother to consult the history of why the pit bull and its related breeds were bred into existence.
It certainly wasn’t for the purpose of providing fun, friendly companions for small children.
Great Taki piece today.
It’s good to see you using that place as a forum for presenting a coherent diagnosis of what went Wrong with the Wright (sorry), and a prescription as to what needs to be in place before it can be fixed.
Take next weekend off as a reward.
my question is were pre-Jaffa conservatives any more effective than post-Jaffa conservatives? my sense is that conservatives have never been particularly effective, they just caught a historical break here and there along the way (and took credit for the results).
Southern conservatives had a pretty good century long run after 1876. One could argue that they not only succeeded in actually conserving something, but even took the offensive and rolled back the radical gains from 1865-1876, and not just symbolically, but in a substantive way that endured for a century. Had Mustache Guy and the fallout from his disaster not wrecked the ability of Anglo-American racial realists to maintain that Settlement of 1876 because the new postwar Left was able to morally equate segregation and the racial status quo to the Mustache Guy’s “endosolung”.
interesting take. did they do this just in the South, or were they able to influence other parts of the country?
In Alanis level irony, California was once not too different from South Carolina in the early 20th century. After 1876, the influence of former Confederates and their sons grew beyond the boundaries of the Old Confederacy to the borderlands that didn’t secede and farther west. That was the genesis of the Solid South in late 19th century to mid 20th century politics. West Virginia, which had sided with Lincoln in 1861, found itself rediscovering common ground with the South they had betrayed by 1880.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Alien_Land_Law_of_1913
all the Okies moving to Socal helped for a few decades :). but real estate went up and they moved back (or at least out of socal).